Professional Documents
Culture Documents
More evidence…
David Moniz, Award-Winning Pentagon Reporter, USA Today, and Co-Founder, Military Reporters and Editors,
5/13/2005 (“Army Offers 15-month Hitch” – USA Today) accessed 7/9/2006,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-13-army-short-tour_x.htm?csp=34
The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty
enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever. The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the
previous shortest enlistment was two years. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting
Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate
ever faced by the all-volunteer Army." Recruits in the new 15-month program could serve in 59 of the more
than 150 jobs in the Army, including the combat infantry, and then serve two years in the Reserve or National
Guard. They would finish their eight-year military obligation in the Guard or Reserve, volunteer programs
such as AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, or the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active-duty troops
who can still be called to duty but aren't affiliated with any military unit.
Whitman College 3
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
Re-enlistment and unit morale is extremely high and recruitment is turning the corner
Drew Brown, Writer, Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1/18/2006 (“Army Re-enlistment Figures Up, But Recruitment
Lags” – Knight Ridder Newspapers) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=10089
Re-enlistments for the Army in fiscal 2005 were the highest they've been in five years, nearly enough to
make up for a shortfall of about 7,000 new recruits last year, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said
Wednesday. More than 69,500 soldiers re-enlisted in the 12 months ending in September, Harvey said. But
last year also was the Army's worst for recruiting since 1999, the last time it failed to meet its annual goal. A
study produced for the service in 2004 indicated that a high chance of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan was
keeping many young people away who might have signed up. Harvey said he believed new recruiting and
referral bonuses and other perks will help. "We've now made our recruiting objectives for the last seven
months, and the future looks promising," he said. New measures signed into law earlier this month include
a $40,000 enlistment bonus, a $1,000 referral fee for soldiers who encourage new recruits to join, and down
payment assistance for soldiers who are first-time home buyers. The Army has already recruited 25 percent
more new troops this year than at the same point in fiscal 2005, Harvey said. The recruiting shortfall in 2005
is one of several factors that have caused some analysts and retired military officials to worry that the Army
may again be "broken," a reference to the late 1970s post-Vietnam era when the service experienced an
exodus of seasoned enlisted men and officers and was chronically short of recruits and new equipment. The
critics worry that the Army may be about to repeat that experience partly because of the strains produced by
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harvey said re-enlistment by troops in Iraq "was the best measure" of the
Army's health. For example, he said, the 3rd Infantry Division, now in Iraq, recently exceeded its re-
enlistment goal by 36 percent. "Morale is high. The soldiers in theater know they're making a difference, and
the soldiers in theater are proud to be part of this effort," he said. David Segal, director of the Center for
Research on Military Organization, said many young soldiers joined the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, and many re-enlist because "they want to stay until the job is done." Another reason to re-
enlist, Segal said, is the bonus, which is tax-free for troops in the war zone.
Whitman College 5
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
Returning members from Iraq are bolstering recruitment for the Guard and Reserve
Ann Scott Tyson, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 3/12/2006 (“Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks” – Washington
Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342_pf.html
A driving force in this year's early success, Guard leaders say, is that thousands of Guard members have now
returned from Iraq and are reaching out to friends, old classmates and co-workers -- widening the face-to-
face contacts that officials say are critical to recruiting. Guard members "are staying with us and want to fill
up units with their neighbors and friends," Blum said in an interview. "Now that they're back -- watch out."
New recruitment programs that give recruiting assistants significant bonuses are ensuring
that the Guard has enough members
Ann Scott Tyson, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 3/12/2006 (“Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks” – Washington
Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342_pf.html
One factor in the recruiting success is the initiative, expanded to 22 states in December, that christened
31,000 Guard members nationwide as "recruiting assistants" who can earn $2,000 for every enlistee -- $1,000
when the recruit signs a contract and another $1,000 when he or she enters boot camp or completes four
months of service. The program, whose success has begun to get publicity in recent weeks, has "taken off
like wildfire," said Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, head of the Nebraska Guard and president of the Adjutants
General Association of the United States. The first enlistment under the program was by a West Virginia
guardsman who signed up his wife. West Virginia was one of five pilot states to launch the program in
November. "I told her, the money is coming; this is a good idea," said Chief Warrant Officer Felix Osuna
Cotto, whose wife, Loretta, had been considering the service but had not decided to join. Osuna Cotto learned
about the program on Friday, Dec. 2, took Loretta to a Guard holiday dinner on Saturday, and on Sunday
enrolled in the program while she talked to recruiters. "By 1 that afternoon, we became the first in the
nation," said Osuna Cotto, who plans to use the $2,000 to buy his son a used car for college. Today, the new
program's recruits are snowballing, growing from 10 a day to more than 120 one day last week, Vaughn said.
Whitman College 8
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
America’s youth has an increasingly negative perception of the military that prevents
recruiting
Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc.,
6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html
With polls showing a solid majority of Americans now considering the Iraq invasion a mistake, Dorn
predicted a troubled future for the army: “This will have an effect on white enlistments in the coming
months.” A study conducted by Millward Brown, a marketing and research firm, found that among all
groups, objections to the war, casualties and incidents like the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison were
taking a toll on recruiting efforts: “Reasons for not considering military service are increasingly based on
objections to the Iraq situation and aversion to the military.” The findings of both the GfK and Millward
Brown studies on young people’s attitudes toward the US military cannot be heartening to the political and
media establishment. Despite an unprecedented propaganda barrage since the September 11 terrorist attacks,
aimed at whipping up the American population into a frenzy about the need to make the world “safe” by
conquering it, American youth are increasingly unenthusiastic about the military. The GfK report, which
compares the views of young people in 2000 and 2004, notes that attitudes toward the Army among all
groups of American youth have grown more negative in recent years. In their summary of findings, the
report’s authors write: “The Army’s recruiting mission in a post 9/11 world is an extremely difficult one....
The option of military service causes inner conflict in today’s youth.... College still ‘wins’ as the preferential
choice for most young adults.” Four in ten youth indicated a willingness “to fight for my country” depending
on the cause; only 22 percent indicated a willingness to fight for their country “for any cause.” Only 10
percent thought “everyone should serve in the military.”
Whitman College 10
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
More evidence…
Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc.,
6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html
Recent reports indicate that growing opposition to the Iraq war, as well as fear of death or injury in a
questionable cause, are beginning to have an effect on US Army and National Guard recruitment. This,
despite bleak economic prospects for great numbers of youth and more enticing bonuses offered to all
recruits.
Whitman College 12
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
The length of enlistment isn’t important. The biggest barrier to recruitment is fear of
dying or going to war.
Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc.,
6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html
Among those opposed to joining, fear “is the biggest barrier to joining the military.” The study observes,
“In the past, barriers [to enlisting in the army] were about inconvenience, or preference for another life
choice. Now they have switched to something quite different:—fear of death or injury.” Nearly twice as
many young men and women in 2004 over four years earlier listed fear of dying, being injured or going to
war “as a barrier to military service for them.” The desire not to die or be injured in a combat zone or even go
to war or a combat zone was the leading single factor for not joining the military, cited by 26 percent of those
surveyed. Twenty-one percent mentioned hostility to “military life,” and 20 percent—a not insignificant
figure—objected to the military as an institution. The latter group did not believe in war or fighting or
considered itself “pacifist.” The drop in recruitment and a growing aversion to the military among young
people inevitably raise an issue that none of the above-mentioned articles cared to tackle: conscription. Under
conditions of shrinking enlistment in the military and an ever-lengthening list of countries targeted for
Washington’s violent and bloody brand of “democratic” makeover, the American ruling elite cannot pursue
its worldwide aims without reintroducing compulsory military service.
Whitman College 16
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
Short-term recruits fail because there 15 months is not enough time for training and the
program won’t provide immediate relief
Bryan A. Keogh, Writer in the Washington Bureau, Chicago Tribune, 3/8/2003 (“Military Recruiters Target
College Ranks” – Chicago Tribune) p. lexis
But not everyone is enthusiastic about the new plan. Cindy Williams, a military analyst at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's security studies program, argues that because the military can fill its ranks, there is
no need for a program whose positive results she considers dubious. The enlistment period is too short to
train someone, Williams said, and she questioned the program's ability to attract the targeted audience. The
new program is not likely to affect a possible war in Iraq, because it would not take effect until well after a
conflict would be launched.
Short-term enlistees would raise training costs and would be ill-suited for military tasks
Bradley Graham, Staff Writer, The Washington Post, 3/18/1999 (“Key Senator Backs 18-Month Enlistment” –
The Washington Post) p. lexis
Military officials generally prefer longer terms. They have worried that reducing enlistment periods would
raise training costs. They also have argued that today's high-tech weaponry and complicated peacekeeping
assignments require soldiers with greater skills and professionalism than can be taught in abbreviated tours of
duty.
If the program fails it does double damage to the military recruiting because of budgetary
tradeoffs
Stanley Kurtz, Contributor Editor, National Review, 4/21/2003 (“It’s Getting a Little Drafty: Our Armed Forces
Need Expansion. How to go about it?” – The National Review) accessed 7/9/2005,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_55/ai_99624000/print
The military's objections are understandable. As it stands, funding for the program will have to come out of
the Pentagon's current recruitment budget. Sensibly enough, the Pentagon is reluctant to tamper with an
already fragile recruitment system for the sake of an unproven experiment.
Whitman College 17
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
Short-term enlistment would be too costly, cause divisions within the force, and doesn’t
constitute the radical change that is needed
Michael P. Noonan, Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Program on National Security, Foreign Policy
Research Institute, 1/19/2005 (“The Future of the Reserves and the National Guard: A Conference Report” –
Foreign Policy Research Institute) http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050119.military.noonan.citizensoldier.html
Richard H. Kohn, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and former Chief
Historian of the United States Air Force, opened by commending Moskos’ call for expanding national service
but later stated that it would be too expensive and might cause negative socio-economic divisions in the
force based upon assignments. The major problem today, according to Kohn, is that the realities of America’s
global commitments were no longer “conducive to or appropriate for a citizen army or citizen-soldiers.”
Furthermore, the notion of the citizen-soldier is dead. Kohn argued that the RC are now part-time
professionals. Citing survey data from a Triangle Institute for Strategic Studies study of 1998-99, Kohn noted
that RC officer attitudes were “almost exactly congruent with their regular counterparts in values, attitudes,
opinions, and perspectives.” What is needed is a radical, holistic review and reconsideration of the entire
military establishment.
Whitman College 18
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
Incentives CP – Solvency
Retention problems can be fixed by implementing RAND recommendations and
overhauling the pay and promotion system
Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and
Owen West, Trader, Goldman Sachs, and served in Iraq for the U.S. Marines, 6/2/2005 (“Dismissed!” – Slate
Magazine) accessed 7/9/2006, http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2120146/
An April 2005 study by the RAND Corp. recommended a number of ways the Army could reduce its "first
term attrition" problem—the early discharge of soldiers during their first tour of duty. About 20 percent of
recruits who enlist never even start active duty, and another 36 percent of those who do report to basic
training fail to complete their first term of service (generally a hitch between two and four years). The report
cited causes such as poor physical conditioning and low educational attainment. (For example, recruits with
GEDs drop out at higher rates than those with high-school diplomas.) Surprisingly, the report found that
college funding, bonuses, and the length of an enlistment contract had little to no bearing on first-term
attrition. The RAND report recommends a number of fixes focused on giving the most tenuous recruits extra
attention and keeping them competitive and fit once they reach boot camp. The Army has yet to implement
any of these recommendations, but it's a safe bet they could retain at least as many soldiers by heeding these
suggestions as by keeping those marked for early discharge. If retention is the goal, the military pay and
promotion system needs a complete overhaul. First, retention bonuses should more closely mirror recruiting
costs. Today they lag by more than 50 percent. Further, there is little science involved in setting incentives.
Exit interviews need to become a systematic piece of the resignation process—just as they are in civilian
companies—with an emphasis on using incentives to encourage people to stick around. The Department of
Defense needs to find the marginal rate that would encourage the most service members to "stay soldier"
while still saving on replacement costs. Second, the lock-step, caste-based pay system needs to be scrapped.
In its place, a risk-adjusted bonus system needs to be built to target the growing majority of soldiers who cite
"hardship" as their reason for leaving the service. The current system pays soldiers working in air-
conditioned office cubicles the same salary as soldiers slogging it out for 13 months in Najaf.
More effective retention policies would stave off the proliferation of private military forces
Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and
Owen West, Trader, Goldman Sachs, and served in Iraq for the U.S. Marines, 6/2/2005 (“Dismissed!” – Slate
Magazine) accessed 7/9/2006, http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2120146/
For years, the infantryman was underpaid because he had no civilian proxy; computer technicians and
aircraft-maintenance chiefs were paid bigger bonuses because of direct civilian competition for their services.
Today, the infantryman has an option. It's called private military contracting, it pays six-figure salaries, and
it's so flexible that you can set your own deployment dates. The Pentagon must stop the proliferation of its
private army. Today there are as many as 30,000 private military contractors serving in traditional military
billets. They are paid up to five times as much as soldiers performing the same duties. Encouraging the
privatization of soldiers when there is a severe shortage of riflemen is circular reasoning. While the Army
and Marines struggle to increase their infantry ranks, the DoD is paying private companies lucrative contracts
to act as personnel brokers. Where do these firms find the recruits? The military. So the government is paying
hefty finders' fees to locate quality soldiers it recruited in the first place. Far from being castoffs, they are
among America's best, mostly senior soldiers lured by pay and flexibility. They belong in the ranks of the
Army and the USMC, not the NYSE.
Whitman College 21
7/19/06 Armed Forces Neg
RMA DA – Links
RMA is focused on application of IT to the military. Achieving the potential of the RMA
requires de-emphasizing ground forces
Frank G. Hoffman, Research Fellow, United States Marine Corps’ Center for Emerging Threats and
Opportunities, Spring 2005 (“The Guard and Reserve in America’s New Missions” – Orbis) p. ScienceDirect
The Military Revolutionaries embrace the application of information technology to American security
matters. This school holds that technological advances have substantially altered the conduct of military
operations, displacing mass and quantity with precision and quality. Its adherents point to new technologies
that allow us to conduct operations more efficiently, with far fewer forces or platforms. To achieve the
potential of the rma, force modernization investments are being shifted from active forces, especially
ground forces, to space-based platforms, aviation-strike capabilities, and advanced sensors and information
networks that link our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to precision-strike systems.